There's a distinction between allegation (and even conviction/settlement) and fact. On a case this high profile and with such high stakes there's plenty of motivation for spurious allegations. That they didn't follow through is telling
I encourage you to read the transcript in which he attempts to arrange the assassinations [1]. It is pretty obvious what he is doing.
To go back to the original point, though, I do not believe that his crimes make his ideas about social networks irrelevant.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-bos...
Not sure why that isn't a crime, but I stand corrected. Thanks for responding with legitimate criticism instead of just downvoting